Lawsuits filed by alleged victims of DePuy Orthopaedics’ recalled ASR hip replacement devices continue to pile up in the multidistrict litigation currently underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio. Most recently, a woman from Pryor, Oklahoma, filed suit alleging complications caused by a DePuy ASR hip implant forced her to undergo painful revision surgery within just five years of her initial hip replacement procedure. The Plaintiff is represented by the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP.

As we’ve reported previously, the DePuy ASR hip implant is a metal-on-metal hip replacement device that was recalled in August 2010, after it was found to be failing within a few years of surgery in an unexpectedly large number of patients. Since the recall, metal-on-metal hip implants have come under increasing scrutiny, amid fears that such devices can shed dangerous amounts of metal ions, which may be absorbed into the bloodstream and local tissue. This phenomenon can result in premature failure of the implant, development of pseudotumors, soft tissue reaction, metallosis and debilitating pain.

Recently, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) revealed that it had received 16,800 negative event reports involving metal hips between 2000 and 2011. Of those, more than 14,000 involved revision surgeries, in which a defective implant was removed. Late last month, the FDA’s Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel recommended that metal-on-metal hip implant patients undergo regular monitoring to ensure their devices are not failing. The panel also called for new warning labels for all-metal hip implants, including warnings regarding their association with the development of pseudotumors and high levels of metal ions in patients’ blood.

According to the latest complaint filed by Parker Waichman, the plaintiff received a, received the DePuy ASR hip implant in April 2007. In May 2012, she underwent revision surgery in order to alleviate symptoms such as pain, locking and metallosis. According to her compliant, the Plaintiff sustained injuries due to both the implantation and explantation of the hip replacement. Finally, the suit alleges that the plaintiff could not have known that her bothersome symptoms were related to the implant until the recall, nor could she have been aware of the elevated levels of cobalt and chromium in her body until blood screening was performed.